search
top

Perry Signs Parking Lot Law in Texas

With my usual caveat that I do not agree with NRA on these parking lot laws, It’s worth noting that while our opponents were busy fighting hysterically to prevent the campus carry bill, our side managed to slip this in.

The message to our opponents is that you can’t win. Even when you think you do, you really don’t. At best, their greatly touted victory in Texas was a delaying action. How many other states can this be done in? How many other states can we distract them with Campus Carry bill, then slip in substantive reforms under the radar while our opponents are pouring resources into defeated the diversionary action?

They will not win. Their only fate is the dustbin of history, along with ideas like monarchy, slavery, segregation, and temperance.

20 Responses to “Perry Signs Parking Lot Law in Texas”

  1. Brad says:

    It’s damn silly for the enemy to focus so much of their energy defending the silly college campus gun-bans. As best I can figure it, the campus bans are important to them because those bans represent the ideal condition the anti-gunners hope to eventually force upon the entire territory of the United States, so preserving these campus gun-free paradises loom large in their minds.

    The same reasoning probably also applied to the self-destructive defense of the handgun-bans of Washington D.C. and Chicago. The anti-gun movement would have been immeasurably better off today if they had just caved in and given up on those stupid city bans. But they just couldn’t do it, could they?

    The enemy is irrational as well as ignorant aren’t they? Just another reason why they will ultimately lose the war over gun control.

  2. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “These parking lot laws are outrageous! How are our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminal/mass murderers supposed to give us the body count we need to advance our gun ban agenda when they’re afraid to shoot anybody at all because they know that their co-workers have legal guns in their cars? It’s just not common communist sense to have laws like this! That Rick Perry guy is NOT a good communist!”

  3. NUGUN says:

    Sebastian. What is your issue with parking lot laws?

    I am of the opinion that a private party can offer or refuse me the right to park my vehicle. But the I inside of my vehicle is my carriage. They have no right over what’s in it, especially if it’s not visible. (ie: I’m not displaying offensive material in or on my vehicle).

  4. Ken Rihanek says:

    The parking lot law is exactly what we need in Missouri.

  5. FatWhiteMan says:

    I have no problem with the parking lot law. As Nugun pointed out the bill not not force them to let you park on their property only that if they do, what stays in your vehicle is your business and responsibility. Further, workplace safety concerns always are given preference over property rights and being able to carry to and from work is just another matter of safety and security.

  6. Ian Argent says:

    Right now automobiles are treated as containers with now heightened right to privacy. A private property owner may demand the right to inspect a container as a precondition of granting permission to enter a property. Hence the signage about inspection of “containers” adorning many corporate facilities.

  7. Stephen says:

    In addition we got a range protection bill passed, a bill to provide for carrying of firearms on personal water craft, and protection for foster parents with a CHL when traveling with a foster child in the car.

    That being said, the two flagship issues for this session were campus carry and the parking lot bill.

    We got 1/2 of what we really wanted. Maybe next time we can push for campus carry and open carry. If we keep getting half of what we want every session, eventually we can restore our rights fully.

  8. Jeffrey H says:

    I also don’t get the dislike of the parking lot law. In Texas under the Castle Doctrine your Car is an extension of your home (so you can conceal in the car without permit). So if we accept that the car is an extension of your castle then the contents of the car are your private business like in your home. As long as the things stay in the car it isn’t anyone else’s concern. As soon as you take the pistol out of the car then to me the private property owner has the right to say I don’t want you carrying on my property.

  9. Sebastian says:

    It’s not really a property issue, it’s an employment law issue. Generally speaking, I don’t favor government interference in private relationships. For the sake of employment, we do that in regards to discrimination, and I’m barely tolerant of that. But I don’t believe carrying a gun, whether in your vehicle or on your person, is the kind of relationship government should interfere with.

    I would argue my friend has a right to tell me I can’t have a firearm on his property. I would also argue I have a right to tell him fuck you and not be his friend anymore, as does he to me if I violate his rights by bringing a gun anyway.

    So it’s not necessarily a property issue. An employer has no right to search your vehicle, and I’ve said no employer will ever search my vehicle. But the employer does have a right to terminate the relationship if you choose to violate the employer agreement.

  10. Stephen says:

    Jeffery, it is not the “castle doctrine” that made it legal for Texans to conceal handguns in their cars without a license, it was the Motorist Protection Act. You can even conceal a handgun on your person in the car without a license, as long as you don’t get out and walk into someone elses property with it still on. Just wanted to clarify some terminology there.

    Texas, thanks partially to being a frontier state, and partially to really messed up law making in the Reconstruction period, has a mishmash of firearms laws.

    For example, I was perfectly legal to drive around at age 18 with an AR-15 in plain view, loaded in my backseat (and often did, when going from one farm to another). But until the MPA passed, concealing a .22 revolver in the console could have gotten me in trouble without a license to carry.

  11. Jeffrey H says:

    Thanks for the clarification Stephen I have only been a resident since 99. I think I confused it with Castle Doctrine as I have heard Castle Doctrine applies to the cars down here, which made me think that is why you can carry the gun in the car. I didn’t realize it was part of a separate act.

  12. Miguel says:

    OK so why CSGV has this post as you comparing them with Slave Owners?

    “Pro-gun blogger Keith Milligan compares Americans who oppose legislation forcing colleges and universities to allow guns on campus with advocates of slavery and segregation. Milligan serves as the NRA’s Election Volunteer Coordinator in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District.”

    CSGV Facebook page.

  13. Dannytheman says:

    My company changed their rulings lately. It is stated in the Employee handbook as follows, “Unless otherwise permitted by applicable law, possessing firearms, weapons or explosives on their property during work hours or in their Company vehicles.”

    I read that as I am able to carry in my car and bring my firearm into the office. Anyone see it differently?

  14. 45er says:

    Oh, and the provision that allows helicopters hired by landowners for wild pig and coyote eradication to allow 3rd parties (that’s me) to participate in shooting from a helicopter. Yes, that is now on my bucket list for a pig eradication shoot. Keep in mind, Texans that most of these do not go into effect until later in the year. September 1 is the effective date for parking lot law.

  15. Jeff Dege says:

    I’d be perfectly happy to allow employers to forbid their employees from storing their guns in their cars, if they were required to provide secure alternative storage, elsewhere.

    The simple fact is that if you forbid someone from carrying a gun on a premises, and provide no place to store the gun on the premises, you’ve required everyone to go unarmed, everywhere, for the entire trip, when the trip includes said premises.

    And when the premises is someone’s place of employment, that means you’re forcing every employee to go unarmed, all day, every working day.

    And that’s simply unreasonable.

    There must be some accommodation for people who carry as a matter of course. You can’t be required to allow them to carry on your premises, but it’s not reasonable to allow you to force them to leave their gun at home.

  16. DamDoc says:

    not sure if you saw it or mentioned it previousle, byt Governor LePage of Maine just signed in a similar law in Maine THIS WEEK…

  17. DamDoc says:

    not sure if you saw it or mentioned it previousle, but Governor LePage of Maine just signed in a similar law in Maine THIS WEEK…

  18. Ian Argent says:

    In a different and better world, property owners who wanted to ban weapons would have to provide secure and convenient storage for same at the secure perimeter, and take responsibility for the defense of the people disarmed by their policy.

  19. Jake says:

    @ Jeff Dege: You’ve hit on my opinion exactly. I would also add the point that people don’t always have the option to choose their employers – sometimes you take the job that’s offered so you can pay your bills and eat, even if it involves otherwise intolerable intrusions on you personal liberties.

    This is my main issue with Sebastian’s objection to these laws. While I agree with him on the general principle, I know from personal experience that employment is not always a truly voluntary relationship.

top